Before its takeover of Hong Kong, Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong and the international community the following things.
First, China would abide by the "one country, two systems" model, under which Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain political, economic and social systems different from China's for at least 50 years. Second, Hong Kong would be ruled by Hong Kong people, meaning that, according to the Basic Law, the chief executive and Legislative Council members would be locally elected, and would not be officials appointed by China.
The reason that the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (
Since its return to China in July 1997, the situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated from the time when it was a British colony. Although people still dance and gamble on horses in Hong Kong, business has been hollowed out, the economy is sinking, unemployment is soaring, real estate prices are falling sharply and personal assets are shrinking. People are unhappy with Beijing-appointed Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's (董建華) performance. However, despite Tung's approval rating of not much more than 10 percent, he is still firmly backed by Beijing.
As the Chinese government has kept none of its promises, 500,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets on July 1 last year. They protested the Tung administration's plan to force the passage of legislation based on Article 23 of the Basic Law, aimed at restricting people's freedom. Under such pressure, Beijing could not but order the local government to withdraw the bill.
On Jan. 1, hundreds of thousands of people once again marched through downtown Hong Kong to ask for democracy. They demanded that the chief executive be directly elected. They did not want a candidate appointed by Beijing and elected via indirect elections. They also requested that all seats in the Legislative Council be filled through direct popular elections.
Beijing ignored these appeals.
Beijing's new restrictions on Hong Kong's self-rule policy means that many Democratic Party members, such as legislators Martin Lee (李柱銘) and Emily Lau (劉慧卿), will not qualify for the next legislative election.
Why is China so afraid of Hong Kong's democracy? Some believe that China's leaders are worried that the democratization of Hong Kong and Taiwan will advance political reform in China, encouraging the Chinese to demand direct elections for mayors, provincial governors, representatives to the congress and even president.
The Beijing authorities have an indescribable fear of real democracy. They believe in one-party dictatorship with political power in the hands of a few. The "centralized democracy" they have advocated is nothing but a gimmick that facilitates the attempt of the few to exercise control over the majority.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong democracy advocates, such as Lee and Lau, still support the "one country, two systems" model and oppose Taiwan's independence.
Hopefully, they will come to understand that the existence of a democratic Taiwan is beneficial to Hong Kong because it places some restrictions on Chinese actions in Hong Kong.
Absurdly, some people in Taiwan also support the "one country, two systems" model. But just look at what has happened in Hong Kong over the past few years. Beijing's promises are completely worthless. In view of the Hong Kong example, I call on Taiwanese people to open their eyes.
Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Jennie Shih
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS